December 2014

December 06, 2014

Part C: Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. 6 January 1996

75. The minor orders and the diaconate are not mere formalities in preparation for presbyterial ordination. They provide a specific service in the Church, and as such are to be effectively exercised in a definitive way by those who do not intend to enter the presbyterate, and in a sufficiently ample way by those who are to be ordained presbyters. This is especially valid for the diaconate. In this sense, misgivings should not be had toward conferring minor Orders and even the diaconate on those who comport themselves well, are suitable and appropriately prepared for the responsibility they assume, and declare themselves available for the service of the Church, even if they must continue to live with their families and practice their own trades. Thus, the ministers necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy are obtained, avoiding the practice, different also in this case from the Latin Church in which it is no longer in use, of having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical functions that should be reserved to those of lower range (the most frequent case is that of presbyters functioning as deacons), or of permanently appointing to the laity liturgical tasks expected of a minister: practices to be eliminated.

76. The diaconate was instituted not for priesthood but for the service of the bishops and presbyters. Deacons were, in fact, once considered as their hands and eyes; or, as expressed by Ignatius of Antioch, the deacons manifest in harmony with them to the faithful people “the commandment of the Lord.” [Cf. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smymaeans VII, I SCh 10 A, 138.] A similar perspective, preserved in the Orthodox Churches and in the process of being recuperated in the Latin community, is to also be placed in full light in the Eastern Catholic Churches. The re-establishment of its liturgical and extra-liturgical mission appears, in fact, to be very beneficial.

Both sections 75 & 76 are part of a canonical instruction that shapes a general framework for liturgical life and practice in the Eastern Catholic Churches. Each of these Churches is to take these general prescriptions and apply them to their own rite in a more particular manner.

Section 75 makes it clear that the diaconate and minor orders are not “mere formalities in preparation for presbyteral ordination”.

It stresses that they are to be exercised in a definitive way by those who will remain in these orders, and in a sufficiently ample manner by those to be ordained presbyters. What time line it does not define.

This section from a liturgical standpoint makes the point that is also an ecclesiological perspective, that these “ministers [are] necessary for a dignified and fitting celebration of the liturgy.” I conclude from this that without deacons and those in minor orders (e.g. subdeacons & readers), the liturgical celebrations are neither dignified nor fitting. Rather strong words.

It also states unequivocally the “ministers of a higher range (presbyters functioning as deacons) are not to perform the liturgical functions of those of a lower range nor should the laity be permanently appointed to tasks of a liturgical minister”.

These practices are to be eliminated:

1. Liturgical services that require deacons and those in minor orders being served without them.

2. Having ministers of a higher range perform the liturgical services of those of a lower range.

3. Permanently appointing liturgical tasks to the laity that should be performed by liturgical ministers.

If this came about in practice it would make in many of the Eastern Catholic Churches a radical change. We are 18 years past the issuance of this Instruction and a long way from its full implementation. And this makes me imagine there are those who possibly through passivity are simply obfuscating.

This obfuscation is also being justified by those who practice the Extraordinary Form of the Roman liturgy where these liturgical practices are embraced and rigorously defended as ‘traditional’.

Liturgical and theological latinization is so difficult for the Eastern Catholic Churches to avoid. It is no easy task to achieve what Orientalium Ecclesiarum 17, desired, that the ancient established practice of the sacrament of orders in the eastern churches may flourish again.

(Is this a Latin rite deacon or a subdeacon? What are the clues?)

Part D: What is the current situation?

Prior to Vatican II there were little more than a handful of deacons in the Eastern Catholic Churches that were not destined for the presbyterate.

Some 454 of these deacons are outside of the ‘traditional’ homelands, primarily in North America, and this accounts for 78.8% of these deacons.

I would also direct your attention to the Syro-Malankara Church, (439,818 faithful); and the Syro-Malabar Church, (3,899,379 faithful), yet it appears that both have ignored O.E. 17 for the last 50 years. Hopefully, they don’t need to do anything in a timely manner.

The Ukrainian Catholic’s have a ratio of 1 deacon to every 33.7 presbyters but the Chaldeans have a ratio of 1 deacon to every .073 presbyters.

I suggest that you go to the website and make your own conclusions about the numbers.

A few questions to contemplate:

What has impeded the vision and implementation of Orientalium Ecclesiarum and Instruction for Applying the Code…?

How does the diaconate as a permanent rank in the hierarchy change the very dynamics in the diocese and the parish?

What is needed to move forward to embody the vision of the diaconate as set forth by Vatican II for the Eastern Catholic Churches?